The Criminal Profiling of Conservative White Males

What does it say that Leftists seem to react to virtually every highly visible criminal act with the hope that the "perp" is a white guy or, even better, a conservative white guy?

Take four recent examples: First, immediately after the January, 2011 shootings near Tucson, Arizona, the Left tried to link the culprit, Jared Lee Loughner, to the Right, only to discover that he was essentially apolitical and mentally unstable. Second, shortly after Trayvon Martin was killed on February 26, 2012 in Florida, The New York Times referred to George Zimmerman, who admitted shooting him, as a "white Hispanic." Third, shortly after the theater shootings in Littleton, Colorado on July 20, 2012, ABC News reporter Brian Ross wrongly accused a Tea Party member as the culprit. Finally, within hours of the bombings in Boston on April 15, 2013 David Sirota blogged on Salon.com: "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."

A moment's thought answers why Leftists pray that a white is responsible for any highly publicized crime.

Once-upon-a-time, leftists displayed no lugubrious solicitude for blacks and other non-whites. During the 1930s, for example, FDR -- a patron saint for American Left-wingers -- did little or nothing about segregation in the South, because doing so would offend southern white (and Democrat) pols whose votes were needed for New Deal legislation. Never forget, also, that Roosevelt was president in 1942 when American citizens of Japanese descent were shipped to "resettlement centers" because of their ethnicity. As recently as the early 1960s, JFK had to be practically dragged into acting on behalf of southern blacks. It's also conveniently forgotten that, to secure passage of his 1964 Civil Rights Bill, LBJ had to depend on a larger percentage of Republican legislators' votes than Democrats'.

Even when white Leftists -- such as the Communist Party -- agitated for blacks from the 1920s to the 1950s, it was more likely because they wanted to advance "the cause," and less probable that they empathized with people of color.

Now we have some prominent whites -- many in the entertainment and communication industries -- who loudly proclaim their allegiance to causes advocated by -- carefully selected -- "civil rights leaders." Some Leftists, such as Chris Matthews, cry "racism!" at the drop of a hat.

(Indeed, Matthews' tendency to charge "racism!" is so nearly a knee-jerk reaction that if I were Sigmund Freud, I'd inquire into what's really going on in Mr. Matthews' mind. Is Matthews, like so many other white Leftists, driven by a sense of white guilt? Since I'm not Freud, let the suspicion pass.)

What seems to have transpired in many Leftists' thinking over the last half-century is a wish to reject everything that might reflect badly on the black community. (This may be why Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Bill Cosby have been so often the victims of ad-hominem attacks by white Leftists, because each has referred to undesirable developments black society.)

Therefore, if Leftists believe nothing bad can be attached to blacks, any act of criminality must perforce be blamed on a white.

But why does it have to be a white male? At first blush, one is inclined to think this is not necessarily a calumny, since men are disproportionately likely to commit crimes, particularly those that might be especially likely to receive widespread publicity. (That may be changing, but for now let the pattern stand.)

Upon deeper reflection, however, one suspects something more sinister may be going on.

Again, a moment's thought provides the answer. Since at least the late 1960s, the Left has bought into the political movement known as "radical feminism." For much of the last generation, Feminist extremists have waged an unrelenting war against men, accusing them of being everything from "not-very-nice" to "serial rapists." Small wonder, then, that the typical Leftist would want to tar men with the charge, "criminal!"

Now let's see if we can ferret out why Leftists want to politicize criminal activity by pinning charges on people from the right side of the political aisle.

Here the reasons are a bit more complex, although not much more complicated.

Let's start from the observation that, at least since the 1960s, Leftists have sought to politicize every aspect of life. If "the personal is political" -- a slogan near-'n-dear to many Leftists -- then the size of the private sector in American society shrinks to almost nothing. The "public sector" encapsulates everything.

If the marital bed is a suitable subject for public legislation, if parent-child relationships can be readily adjudicated, if religious beliefs and practices are open to public disputation, is it any surprise that a criminal act gets tossed into the public arena?

So far, so good, but why do Leftists seek to connect conservatives to criminality? This is where, as far as this essay is concerned, "the-rubber-meets-the-road."

Many conservatives refuse to accept a fundamental truth: for Americans Leftists, the real enemy is conservatism. For the typical American Leftist, someone on the right side of politics is a bigger enemy, and thus more deserving of utter defeat, than any other entity in politics, be it a Russian ultra-nationalist like Vladimir Putin, a North Korean nutcase like Kim Jong Un, or a radical Islamist such as Ayman al-Zawahiri. For many American Leftists, the only good conservative is a dead one. (To illustrate, Leftists couldn't think of anything positive about Ronald Reagan until after he died.)

As far as the typical Leftist is concerned, most conservatives are also "xenophobic," "homophobic," "racist," "misogynist," "judgmental," "pro-rich," "anti-poor," and desirous that the sick will "die quickly." Is there any wonder that, if this is the Leftist's view of conservatives, he/she would think of them as a bigger threat than Russian irredentists, North Korean nutcases with nukes, and al Qaeda fanatics?

A few observers, such as Rush Limbaugh, have understood this, and tried to publicize it so that other conservatives would be alert and react accordingly. Sadly, many people on the Right have not tumbled to that fact.

Until Leftists and their mainstream media acolytes pay a huge price for "rushing to judgment" when trying to pin every highly visible crime on rightists, the practice won't stop.

It's probably too late to try taking advantage of Leftists' false claims about Loughner. The same can be said for ABC's false report about the shootings at Littleton, CO. Concerning the Boston Marathon bombings, the trial of Dzhokar Tsarnev may be a suitable venue to set the record straight, and give Mr. Sirota his come-uppance.

Conservatives' best opportunity in the near future will probably be George Zimmerman's show trial. Zimmerman is male, of course, but his mother is Hispanic and a grandfather was a person of color. Conservatives have to tout these facts, and ask why The New York Times -- and their left-wing fellow travelers -- saw his identity differently.

Did The Times' story reflect a desire to stoke a race war? I don't know, but one wonders.

Major newspapers have already forfeited a great deal of the public's trust. Here's another reason to question newspapers' credibility.

What does it say that Leftists seem to react to virtually every highly visible criminal act with the hope that the "perp" is a white guy or, even better, a conservative white guy?

Take four recent examples: First, immediately after the January, 2011 shootings near Tucson, Arizona, the Left tried to link the culprit, Jared Lee Loughner, to the Right, only to discover that he was essentially apolitical and mentally unstable. Second, shortly after Trayvon Martin was killed on February 26, 2012 in Florida, The New York Times referred to George Zimmerman, who admitted shooting him, as a "white Hispanic." Third, shortly after the theater shootings in Littleton, Colorado on July 20, 2012, ABC News reporter Brian Ross wrongly accused a Tea Party member as the culprit. Finally, within hours of the bombings in Boston on April 15, 2013 David Sirota blogged on Salon.com: "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."

A moment's thought answers why Leftists pray that a white is responsible for any highly publicized crime.

Once-upon-a-time, leftists displayed no lugubrious solicitude for blacks and other non-whites. During the 1930s, for example, FDR -- a patron saint for American Left-wingers -- did little or nothing about segregation in the South, because doing so would offend southern white (and Democrat) pols whose votes were needed for New Deal legislation. Never forget, also, that Roosevelt was president in 1942 when American citizens of Japanese descent were shipped to "resettlement centers" because of their ethnicity. As recently as the early 1960s, JFK had to be practically dragged into acting on behalf of southern blacks. It's also conveniently forgotten that, to secure passage of his 1964 Civil Rights Bill, LBJ had to depend on a larger percentage of Republican legislators' votes than Democrats'.

Even when white Leftists -- such as the Communist Party -- agitated for blacks from the 1920s to the 1950s, it was more likely because they wanted to advance "the cause," and less probable that they empathized with people of color.

Now we have some prominent whites -- many in the entertainment and communication industries -- who loudly proclaim their allegiance to causes advocated by -- carefully selected -- "civil rights leaders." Some Leftists, such as Chris Matthews, cry "racism!" at the drop of a hat.

(Indeed, Matthews' tendency to charge "racism!" is so nearly a knee-jerk reaction that if I were Sigmund Freud, I'd inquire into what's really going on in Mr. Matthews' mind. Is Matthews, like so many other white Leftists, driven by a sense of white guilt? Since I'm not Freud, let the suspicion pass.)

What seems to have transpired in many Leftists' thinking over the last half-century is a wish to reject everything that might reflect badly on the black community. (This may be why Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Bill Cosby have been so often the victims of ad-hominem attacks by white Leftists, because each has referred to undesirable developments black society.)

Therefore, if Leftists believe nothing bad can be attached to blacks, any act of criminality must perforce be blamed on a white.

But why does it have to be a white male? At first blush, one is inclined to think this is not necessarily a calumny, since men are disproportionately likely to commit crimes, particularly those that might be especially likely to receive widespread publicity. (That may be changing, but for now let the pattern stand.)

Upon deeper reflection, however, one suspects something more sinister may be going on.

Again, a moment's thought provides the answer. Since at least the late 1960s, the Left has bought into the political movement known as "radical feminism." For much of the last generation, Feminist extremists have waged an unrelenting war against men, accusing them of being everything from "not-very-nice" to "serial rapists." Small wonder, then, that the typical Leftist would want to tar men with the charge, "criminal!"

Now let's see if we can ferret out why Leftists want to politicize criminal activity by pinning charges on people from the right side of the political aisle.

Here the reasons are a bit more complex, although not much more complicated.

Let's start from the observation that, at least since the 1960s, Leftists have sought to politicize every aspect of life. If "the personal is political" -- a slogan near-'n-dear to many Leftists -- then the size of the private sector in American society shrinks to almost nothing. The "public sector" encapsulates everything.

If the marital bed is a suitable subject for public legislation, if parent-child relationships can be readily adjudicated, if religious beliefs and practices are open to public disputation, is it any surprise that a criminal act gets tossed into the public arena?

So far, so good, but why do Leftists seek to connect conservatives to criminality? This is where, as far as this essay is concerned, "the-rubber-meets-the-road."

Many conservatives refuse to accept a fundamental truth: for Americans Leftists, the real enemy is conservatism. For the typical American Leftist, someone on the right side of politics is a bigger enemy, and thus more deserving of utter defeat, than any other entity in politics, be it a Russian ultra-nationalist like Vladimir Putin, a North Korean nutcase like Kim Jong Un, or a radical Islamist such as Ayman al-Zawahiri. For many American Leftists, the only good conservative is a dead one. (To illustrate, Leftists couldn't think of anything positive about Ronald Reagan until after he died.)

As far as the typical Leftist is concerned, most conservatives are also "xenophobic," "homophobic," "racist," "misogynist," "judgmental," "pro-rich," "anti-poor," and desirous that the sick will "die quickly." Is there any wonder that, if this is the Leftist's view of conservatives, he/she would think of them as a bigger threat than Russian irredentists, North Korean nutcases with nukes, and al Qaeda fanatics?

A few observers, such as Rush Limbaugh, have understood this, and tried to publicize it so that other conservatives would be alert and react accordingly. Sadly, many people on the Right have not tumbled to that fact.

Until Leftists and their mainstream media acolytes pay a huge price for "rushing to judgment" when trying to pin every highly visible crime on rightists, the practice won't stop.

It's probably too late to try taking advantage of Leftists' false claims about Loughner. The same can be said for ABC's false report about the shootings at Littleton, CO. Concerning the Boston Marathon bombings, the trial of Dzhokar Tsarnev may be a suitable venue to set the record straight, and give Mr. Sirota his come-uppance.

Conservatives' best opportunity in the near future will probably be George Zimmerman's show trial. Zimmerman is male, of course, but his mother is Hispanic and a grandfather was a person of color. Conservatives have to tout these facts, and ask why The New York Times -- and their left-wing fellow travelers -- saw his identity differently.

Did The Times' story reflect a desire to stoke a race war? I don't know, but one wonders.

Major newspapers have already forfeited a great deal of the public's trust. Here's another reason to question newspapers' credibility.